MEPs want a temporary freeze on EU accession talks with Turkey. In a resolution voted on Thursday, they say Turkey should nonetheless remain “anchored” to the EU. They also pledge to review their position when the "disproportionate repressive measures" under the state of emergency in Turkey are lifted.

Click to expand...

Is it really about Turkey's constitution or the fact that the EU would not survive Turkish accession right now or in the foreseeable future?

And how is that going to happen with the UK leaving the EU?
Im sure you know how the EU works.

Click to expand...

I did not say Britain, but EU. Turkey would be one of the most populous country in EU, a population that is practically exploding when compared to below replacement fertility rates of rest of Europe. Turkey in EU ,where Turks would have right to move and settle anywhere in EU, would demographically overwhelm western European countries in short period of time, and lead to neo-Ottoman rule over most western Europe.

I did not say Britain, but EU. Turkey would be one of the most populous country in EU, a population that is practically exploding when compared to below replacement fertility rates of rest of Europe. Turkey in EU ,where Turks would have right to move and settle anywhere in EU, would demographically overwhelm western European countries in short period of time, and lead to neo-Ottoman rule over most western Europe.

Out of curiosity,wasn't the UK one of the main vocal support to Turkey's accession in the EU ? . In fact,it was main Turkey's ally. Germany and France would have always opposed Turkey's entry anyway.

Click to expand...

Tony Blair. New labour, new danger. It was also long before the Middle East caught fire and the rats went fleeing everywhere and Erdogan executed order 66. Fun fact, a lot has happened in the last 10 years. Too fast for everyone to fully understand the implications yet, but we're ahead of the curve.

It'll be interesting to see what shape the sanctions against Visegrad take. Economic or full scale banishment from EU. The latter may be the best option for fixing the EU's budget black hole.

Read my post again. I did not posted that Turkey has higher TFR than Nigeria. I posted that "Turkey population is practically exploding in comparison to population of Western European countries" which is correct today as Turkey has TFR of 2.09, while Germany has TFR of 1.3,Spain has TFR of 1.49, Belgium has TFR of 1.7, France and Sweden have TFR of 1.9.

Turkish population ,if included in EU, would be second largest in EU (becoming largest in just 3 years from now) and would have higher TFR compared to western European countries, and as your map states, Turkish TFR would remain higher than that of Western Europe for foreseeable future. Thus Turks in EU would overwhelm Western Europe demographically and capture power by becoming largest voting block.

You do not need to become majority to capture power in democracies. A voting block of 20% is more than enough as ,in multi-party democracy, parties win power with voting percentage between 25-30%, thus making a block of 20% impossible to overcome in any election.There is already substantial Turkish population in Germany 5% so it would not take much for Turks to become strongest voting block in Germany.

Let me explain the meaning of the UK leaving the EU.
The UK and my country would be the strongest block(the Franco-German block would be sidelined) in the EU so,they would rule the EU,thats why i said it.

Tony Blair. New labour, new danger. It was also long before the Middle East caught fire and the rats went fleeing everywhere and Erdogan executed order 66. Fun fact, a lot has happened in the last 10 years. Too fast for everyone to fully understand the implications yet, but we're ahead of the curve.

Click to expand...

UK supported Turkey in EU because it was ordered by USA to support Turkey. I still remember that Bush was very vocal about Turkey becoming part of EU.

With Turkey-USA becoming cold in recent years, UK support for Turkey would have evaporated ,even if UK remained in EU, and your block would have came to fruition only in patches.

None of PIIGS economies are part of Visegrad, and EU need Visegrad workers (irrespective of rhetoric) to run their economies.

Banishment would not fix EU budget hole. It would either lead to collapse of EU economy, or force EU to import refugees to replace V4 workers.

Also note that EU is not USA. It has serious difficulty in attracting skilled immigrants, as European media is very weak compared to Anglo-phone media globally.

Click to expand...

The EU economy absolutely does not need Visegrad workers. Large employers want them to improve profits, but want does not equal need. And those very same employers have behaved illegally with respect to wages, so they deserve to lose their cheap labour.

The EU economy absolutely does not need Visegrad workers. Large employers want them to improve profits, but want does not equal need. And those very same employers have behaved illegally with respect to wages, so they deserve to lose their cheap labour.

Click to expand...

This is an example of magical thinking.

States ,and bloated welfare system that they support, run on taxes paid for by those large employers and their employees. If profit margin of large employers crashes, or worse still they go out of business due to not being able to compete with cheap imports; EU's economy, its tax revenue, and welfare system that depend on that revenue would collapse.

Large employers do not exist in vacuum so that hardship to them would not translate into hardship for economy in general. Also a lot of jobs that V4 immigrants do are essential and could not be mechanized (for ex: garbage collection, Truck driving) and EU would have to import someone to do those jobs. Its choice is between V4 and "refugees".

States ,and bloated welfare system that they support, run on taxes paid for by those large employers and their employees. If profit margin of large employers crashes, or worse still they go out of business due to not being able to compete with cheap imports; EU's economy, its tax revenue, and welfare system that depend on that revenue would collapse.

Large employers do not exist in vacuum so that hardship to them would not translate into hardship for economy in general. Also a lot of jobs that V4 immigrants do are essential and could not be mechanized (for ex: garbage collection, Truck driving) and EU would have to import someone to do those jobs. Its choice is between V4 and "refugees".

Click to expand...

Those welfare systems wouldn't be so bloated if it were not for a diarrhetic flow of cheap labour from Visegrad and worse still from Romania and Bulgaria. Overly cheap imports can be stomped out with legislation and tariffs.

The hardship in this case is merely a marginal reduction in profits, offset by a reduction in corporation tax and increased income tax revenue due to higher wages and less strain on the welfare system.

The garbage was collected a long time before V4 joined the EU and seen as you brought up garbage, there's been a marked increase in fly-tipping during the last decade.

Those welfare systems wouldn't be so bloated if it were not for a diarrhetic flow of cheap labour from Visegrad and worse still from Romania and Bulgaria.

Click to expand...

In your country, if a V4 immigrant in order to qualify to get on welfare, he/she has to prove that either he/she is working, or is actively searching for job with high chance of getting it in near future. This makes V4 immigrants ,practically, ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Only benefit that V4 immigrant get are in-job benefit like medicare (which all,but few, Britishers avail), and EU workers take up only 10% of total in-job benefit.

Welfare in UK or any country of EU is not going to become less bloated ,if East Europeans are thrown out. UK citizens are eligible for higher amount of welfare than V4 residents, and they do withdraw higher benefit per-capita than East Europeans. There is a reason why even your government,while making case against EU migration, only provided statistics for in-job welfare, rather than total welfare East Europeans withdraw.

WTO ,explicitly, forbids that. Also, your trade partners are not idiotic cowards who would take legislation on their chin. Legislation and tariffs would be met with counter legislation and counter-tariffs.

The hardship in this case is merely a marginal reduction in profits, offset by a reduction in corporation tax and increased income tax revenue due to higher wages and less strain on the welfare system.

Click to expand...

Magical thinking again.

(1) Replacing workers with machines is not cheap, and never has been cheap. It not only entails capital costs, but increased energy and maintenance costs. Technology for extensive mechanization has existed for two decades. It is economic factors which are holding back mechanization.

(2) In most developed/high wage/high cost of living countries, replacing foreign workers with domestic ones entail even higher cost than machines (given that workers even show up in first place), and is the reason why if any manufacturing returns, that job is taken up by robots.

(3) Biggest fail of your assertion here is mathematical failure. Your reply to my assertion that lower profits would lead to lower tax collection is that lower profits could be offset by reduction in corporation tax. Here you did not ran the scenario over what would be end result of doing so, mathematically.

If profits of corporations fall due to clampdown on immigration, government loses money as taxes are proportional to profits. For immigration clampdown to be revenue neutral, government need to increase taxes, which lead to further decrease in profit and closing down of enterprise. Government this way has made its policy revenue neutral, but has also condemned its economy to stagnation.

If government takes your advise and reduces tax to compensate for loss in revenue due to its immigration policies, it may make its policy revenue neutral for enterprise, but since it has reduces tax rates, its tax revenue still decrease.

(4) Loss of tax revenue would not be limited to what it loses from citizens only, as consumption done by immigrants is also taxed.

(5) Loss of jobs for citizens would not just be direct -as in jobs they lose due to closing down or transfer of specific jobs- but also job loss that would occur due to forced shifting of whole system overseas, because some crucial part of supply chain became unviable due to lack of migrants, and thus whole process (including parts which are still cost-effective in home country) has to be shifted overseas.